Actually, Yonah, you presume too much regarding what I think. I think it would have been better for Chotiner to do as you suggest. I doubt the results would have been much different if Chotiner pressed him on the subject of Palestinian rights using your approach, but yes, I prefer precise questions that would pin Oren down on what he really thinks. I suspect they would have quickly reached a point where Oren would have been outraged.. I suspect that some ( not you) would have come to his defense.

Which lands, Nathan. The lands their ancestors lived in 2000 years ago?

Also, on this whole reclaiming lands thing, do you mean the Lakota driving out white people currently living on their lands from the 19th Century, or do you mean having the freedom to live anywhere inside the United States? Personally I think it is a bad idea to cure ethnic cleansing with ethnic cleansing, but in the modern era we feel embarrassed by the 19th Century practice of stealing land and forcing people to live in reservations.

Jon, be serious. Oren was pushing his point of view. He got upset when he realized Chotiner wouldn’t go along with letting him set the parameters of how the issues should be discussed.
The last thing he wanted was to talk about what rights Palestinians have to live in any part of their homeland compared to his rights as a Brooklyn born Jew, so he had to end the conversation. And you are defending him, because it is more comfortable for you to make it about a supposed journalistic lapse rather than about how far right Israel has moved.

Oren was running away from a tough interview. All he had to do was explain what rights he thinks Palestinians have. Since he clearly does think they have less rights to live there than he does, it would be awkward to admit that to someone who was being as blunt as Chotiner was.

No it isn’t, Jon. It is normal for interviewers to ask leading questions and Chotiner’s. assumption about Oren’s beliefs were logical , which was my point. Oren could have responded by explaining what rights he thinks Palestinians do have. He didn’t, probably because he realized it wouldn’t sound good.

It’s common for reporters to ask leading questions. I don’t always like it, but a reasonably intelligent interviewer can respond by saying “ No, I don’t think that, I think this other thing.” Oren thinks the entire region belongs to Jews no matter where they were born and he clearly must believe that Israel had the right to expel Palestinians in 48 or there wouldn’t be a majority Jewish state inside the 67 lines. But Oren also thinks he has a right to live on the West Bank. Regarding his own rights as a Jew they are absolute in his mind.

Palestinians, on the other hand, have to negotiate for whatever portions of the land he and other Israeli Jews might be willing to give up. So yes, Oren has to think his rights to the land are greater than those of the Palestinians. His position doesn’t make sense otherwise. They aren’t even discussing whether Palestinians have the right to move back inside the 67 lines.

Imagine Oren’s reaction if Chotiner asked why Palestinians didn’t have the right to build homes inside Israel. A perfectly fair question, but from Oren’s POV it would be ten times worse than what Chotiner did ask.

“This weekend everyone is talking about a revealing interview with Michael Oren by Isaac Chotiner in the New Yorker”

I googled and while you can find discussions on Twitter, I don’t see much else. Unless that changes, not many people are even going to know the conversation happened at all. If the msm wanted people to know how far right Israel has moved, they could have said so years ago.

Eljay. You’re right. And it is interesting to see Jon defending Oren. A liberal Zionist, someone who sincerely favors a 2ss, should be appalled by Oren, but not Jon. Given what Israel has become, apparently it is more important to circle the wagons.